6.0 CPU Usage Higher than 5.2 w/Screenshots!

[Brother Charles]

I really love three of the new features!
A) Multiple outputs/channels for Multi-out VSTs such as Kontakt or EZdrummer.
B) New shiny, easier to "read" interface.
C) New Piano Roll editor is a little easier to work in and more attractive.

There are more "cool" features, I'm sure, but I've only had the ver. 6 beta installed for a couple of hours *smile*

MAJOR CONs:

A) CPU consumption on my 2nd Gen i3 2330 is about 10-15% higher than the same project loaded into Mixcraft 5.2.
B) Still NOT 64 bit! Arghhh! C'mon Acoustica folks, get with the times, please. We need 64 bit applications to compete with FL Studio, Studio One, Ableton, Cubase, etc. . . I was really, really anticipating a 64 bit variant for the upcoming version 6. The lack of a well-working 64 bit version is enough to make me really re-evaluate the next most affordable DAW; FL Studio.

I seriously hope this gets resolved or I won't be using the new version of the software. Features and prettiness aren't as important as performance and system stability. I don't want to trade my current (reasonable) lower system resource consumption for "bling". The multi-out capability really enthuses me, but not enough to upgrade if version 6 will tax my system too much. As it is, I bought Pianissimo bundled with MC 5, and while it's a decent piano VSTi, it crashes the system when used in conjunction with EZ Drummer or Kontakt 5. Since ToonTrack and Native Instruments not only "raise" the bar, but could almost be considered to be "the bar"; this is something that you really ought to fix regarding Pianissimo. Anyhoo . . . back to the posted topic . .

Something that has always been a bit sticky for me concerning Mixcraft 5.x, is that I get more latency with Mixcraft than any other application. I have a good quality audio interface - Avid Mbox Mini (3rd Gen) Using Guitar Rig (standalone) or Cakewalk Sonar X1, or FL Studio demo, or Reaper (all 64bit applications), I can use a buffer size of 128 with only negligible artifacting; 256 works flawlessly. However, in Mixcraft 5.2, a buffer size of 256 results in more artifacting than in any other application. I've never bothered to post a complaint about this, because I just chalked it up to the app only being 32 bit. Now, we get offered a new version, and although the upgrade price of $20 is very, very reasonable, we still don't get to enjoy the benefits of of 64 bit computing.

I generally really like Acoustica's products - great value for the price. I'm quick to tell other home recording enthusiasts about Acoustica's nifty software and reasonable pricing structure. Acoustica products are not as robust as the more expensive competition, but very good products none-the-less.

My screenshots prove a whopping 12% increase in CPU consumption.

CPU Usage - MC5.2
http://s175.photobucket.com/albums/w148 ... ion_52.png

CPU Usage - MC6
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w148 ... ion_60.png

Thank you Dan@Acoustica & development team for your efforts.

[Acoustica Greg]

Hi,

How did you determine that the CPU usage was 10% - 15% higher?

Greg

[Brother Charles]

@ Acoustica Greg:

I'm pretty sure I mentioned it in the original post, but I will clarify.

Direct comparison. My mx5 project loaded - keeping a close watch on the Acoustica cpu/system monitor in lower right corner. Project hits "33%" MAX.

Repeat process in the new beta ver. 6 (same project file) - Project hits 57% MAX. More audio crackle, glitches, momentary freezing, etc.. (Using either WaveRT or ASIO):(

I wish it were not so because I really like the new features. It's a very attractive interface upgrade as well.

Is there an upgrade option linked somewhere on the Acoustica site? If I click the "Buy beta 6" link, the only purchase option is full price. Is there a $20 upgrade link somewhere? Is that a premature question? . .

And how about addressing the other concerns; firstly, 64 bit computing. Why is latency more prevalent using MixCraft over other DAWs, or standalone applications? (Amplitude 3.x, Guitar Rig 4.x, 5.x, etc. .) Why hasn't Pianissimo been refined to NOT have to be loaded into a project first because of poor memory management, and why does it behave so badly with other VSTIs, such as EZ Drummer?

I haven't bothered to post my Pianissimo concerns in its own section of the forum, because I see that it hasn't had a blessed thing done with it since 2008 . . . it's a lovely little VSTi, but if it is still being sold, it should continue having refinements made to it. NOT MORE features, but improvements in memory allocation, crash-proofing, etc.. By vocation, I'm a professional computer/networking technician and I have substantial education in the field of programming (from back in the day . . . lol) The rest of the time, I'm a part-time Full Gospel minister. (Not that ministry has anything directly to do with the discussion at hand . . .lol) Suffice it to say, I know enough about application development to observe the need for refinement in Pianissimo, and the very obvious need for a properly functioning 64 bit version of Mixcraft.

I've been a faithful Acoustica customer since I bought CD/DVD label maker back a few years ago, but it's now been close to 3 years since 64 bit computing has become the norm for professional media/music production. Mixcraft held a respectable position within the home recording sector since the release of ver. 4.x. However, with strong performers such as Reaper, FL Studio, Cubase Elements, and others cresting capably on 64bit tides, you folks really need to reconsider the lack of a well-functioning 64bit iteration of your "flagship" product. The multi core strength of Mixcraft seems to be working just fine, just please consider bumping it up to 64 bit.

I'm not a complainer - I'm a serious (semi-professional) home recording customer and I know that my questions/concerns are tangible and valid. If enough of your customer-base were to gently encourage you folks about these legitimate concerns, perhaps you folks would apply more attention to them.

In the meantime, because I care about Acoustica and I do believe in supporting you, I ask that the good Lord assist you with addressing these few issues.

Thanks & God Bless,
Bro. Charles Allen

[Acoustica Greg]

Hi,

Remember that Mixcraft 6 is still being beta tested. The CPU usage should not be any higher in Mixcraft 6 and we're not seeing that here. In fact, it could be lower in some cases. Are you looking at the CPU usage on the bottom of Mixcraft's screen? If so, are you talking about the Mixcraft CPU reading or the System CPU reading?

Go back and double check that your sound device settings and everything else are the same in both programs.

If you load one of the Mixcraft 5 example projects in both programs, is there a difference in the CPU load? Or is the difference only appearing with your projects that use third-party plugins?

What aspect of a 64-bit version of Mixcraft appeals to you? Why do you want a 64-bit version?

It's hard to say why Mixcraft 5 doesn't perform identically to your other DAWs in respect to latency. Your best bet would be to use a sound device that provides its own ASIO drivers. We're always striving to optimize the performance of Mixcraft and Mixcraft 6 does include optimization.

We're probably not going to be updating Pianissimo, but thanks for your feedback.

Greg

[Brother Charles]

LOL . . . I'm most nearly certain that I articulated well in my previous post(s).

What part of 64 bit appeals to me? How about larger memory addressing for starters? I mean no offense, but seriously, if you're going to offer advice as an Acoustica representative, don't ask questions that make it seem like you don't what the benefits of 64 bit computing are.

Have I not repeated myself as regards 3rd party plugins? - EZ Drummer, Kontakt, etc.?

Yes, sir, I watch the lower right corner of the MIXCRAFT screen. It displays the same information that the Windows Task Manager indicates.

ASIO? Did I not already succinctly state that I tested using both WaveRT and also ASIO drivers? I re-read my own posts and I know with certainty that I specified that I use an AVID Mbox mini (3rd Gen) audio interface.
http://www.avid.com/US/products/Mbox-Mini

Go back and check my audio settings? While I appreciate your level 1 approach to tech support, yes I of course made sure of that immediately. Besides, the Mbox ASIO properties are system global. Anyhoo . . .
I'm not concerned about Acoustica's example project files as a test source. Acoustica's project sample files are mostly rendered audio files - I'm concerned about my own "real world" album project files which utilize lots of midi sequenced tracks and 3rd party, (industry leading) VSTIs & effects. Although I'm using Acoustica's affordable software, I'm not recording a wannabe, amateur project. Actually, I'm seriously recording a professional Gospel album. I haven't been able to afford a copy of Ableton Live, or ProTools 9 due to other financial obligations, so I squeeze respectable performance out of Acoustica Mixcraft 5.2.

If Acoustica aren't going to update/maintain Pianissimo, then perhaps it should be made available as freeware or at a greatly reduced price. For example, Sampletekk's "Black Grand", high quality Steinway Model D Kontakt library only costs $50. Native Instrument's Steinway D sample library, "New York Concert Grand", can be acquired for only $10 more than Acoustica charges for Pianissimo. Pianissimo is certainly a decent sounding instrument for non-critical piano tracks, but it does not cooperate with more modern plugins that are very widely in use and as such, although I paid for it, I can't use it in my projects. It reminds me of walking into an old pawnshop and buying an old 35ml SLR camera for the price of a new SONY digital SLR camera.

If you are accurately representing Acoustica, by asking a question about why a 64 bit version of Mixcraft is important to your customers, then it's time that your customers to consider paying a little more money for more modern, capable applications. Why take a Greyhound bus for a 4 day trip, when you can fly there in 5 hours, at only a small difference in cost . . .

In my own personal assessment, Acoustica seriously dropped the ball concerning Pianissimo, and now are dropping the ball with Mixcraft, as regards ignoring the need for a good quality 64 bit version.

The era of Windows XP & 32 bit computing is over. Most nearly all new OS and application development caters and contributes to present-day 64 bit computing.

Instead of responding by asking me further redundant questions, how about addressing my questions with some solid answers. Straight forward questions deserve straight forward answers. Your skirting the straight questions does not invite confidence from me, an Acoustica customer.

Here's the main question: Why no development of a 64 bit version of Mixcraft? The new features are very welcome and are fine additions to the Mixcraft roster. Unfortunately, those new features don't get to really shine due to the limitations imposed by remaining stuck in a 32 bit format.

I'm willing to pay $20, regardless, to make some use of the new version, but without 64bit support, I will be considering looking elsewhere for a new 64bit DAW. I'm really starting to mind the 32 bit memory constraints, and the noticeable latency issue (as compared to other 64bit DAWs) is a pain-in-the-noodle for me too . . . *gentle smile*

Again, I have really, really liked a great deal about Acoustica's software, but there are a few issues that I need to see addressed and resolved. That being said, if I'm considering having to reluctantly withdraw my support, how many customers do you suppose feel the same way? I encourage you to troll the various audio forums, such as Gearslutz and KVR. Most professionals don't pay much heed to Acoustica's software in the first place. With the total absence of a quality 64 bit version of the DAW, is it possible that you will have even less support from the professional and semi-professional home recording community?

I will be keeping a keen eye on the progression of MC6. I really like a lot about it, but the jump in PC resource consumption, that I experienced, concerns me. Of course, I realize that the application is still under beta development.

Sincerely,
Charles

Hi,

Remember that Mixcraft 6 is still being beta tested. The CPU usage should not be any higher in Mixcraft 6 and we're not seeing that here. In fact, it could be lower in some cases. Are you looking at the CPU usage on the bottom of Mixcraft's screen? If so, are you talking about the Mixcraft CPU reading or the System CPU reading?

Go back and double check that your sound device settings and everything else are the same in both programs.

If you load one of the Mixcraft 5 example projects in both programs, is there a difference in the CPU load? Or is the difference only appearing with your projects that use third-party plugins?

What aspect of a 64-bit version of Mixcraft appeals to you? Why do you want a 64-bit version?

It's hard to say why Mixcraft 5 doesn't perform identically to your other DAWs in respect to latency. Your best bet would be to use a sound device that provides its own ASIO drivers. We're always striving to optimize the performance of Mixcraft and Mixcraft 6 does include optimization.

We're probably not going to be updating Pianissimo, but thanks for your feedback.

Greg

[Brother Charles]

Howdy Greg!

Being a ToonTrack EZ drummer user, I am totally thanking Acoustica's development team and praising the Lord Jesus for multi-out VST support. That absolutely rocks! I'd gotten really tired of 'soloing' the various drum channels and exporting each one as a new audio file. Now, like users of the more expensive "Big Boy" DAWs, we Acoustica customers can apply compressors, ambiance effects, EQ, etc., to kick, snare, etc., independent of each other. WITHOUT having to export each one to an individual audio track. YAY!

I'm really liking the greatly improved GUI, and the more "usable" piano roll editor. Great new features! As long as the 32 bit memory constraints don't get in the way to much, I'm very happy to remain with Acoustica's Mixcraft.

I haven't had the time or availability yet to test all of my existing VSTs and VSTIs, but so far, every one that I have tested is working well. Of significant importance to me, is the fact that my installation of Native Instruments Komplete 8 package seems to all be working well. I was able to point MC6 to my old VST folder(s) and everything works as expected. I really like being able to save effects chains too. I often "wished" for that in the previous version.

I'm really, really like the ability to use "submix" busses now too! Perfect for mixing group or backing vocals, drums, horn sections, etc. . Perfect! Thank you, Acoustica development team.

I raised some serious concerns in my previous posts, but I also want to be very quick to post positive feedback as well.

That being said - the cpu consumption is DEFINITELY HIGHER. 10 - 15% higher, in my case. I've taken screenshots to prove it. When my average CPU usage increases from about 30% up to 40% (and higher) I don't like it. Same project files, same VSTIs, etc. .. . the only difference is the DAW. I strongly suggest that Acoustica lower the CPU consumption, and deploy a 64bit version.

My screenshots prove a whopping 12% increase in CPU consumption.

CPU Usage - MC5.2
http://s175.photobucket.com/albums/w148 ... ion_52.png

CPU Usage - MC6
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w148 ... ion_60.png

[Acoustica Greg]

Hello Charles,

While you may feel that I'm providing "level 1" support, I hope you can try to understand my perspective. You said that CPU usage was 10%-15% higher in Mixcraft 6. Our immediate reaction would be to try to determine whether this is the case for everybody and whether there is anything that we can do about it. As I said, we haven't seen an across the board increase in CPU usage in Mixcraft 6 during this beta testing period. If it's something that we can fix, we want to do that.

On the bottom of Mixcraft's screen, there are two CPU numbers, and I wanted to know which one you were quoting when you said Mixcraft 6 was hitting 57%. Was that the Mixcraft CPU number or the System CPU number? Did they both increase 10% to 15%?

I realize you might not care about the Mixcraft example projects, but in the interest of narrowing down the possible cause of the increased CPU usage, I was trying to determine whether this was related to third-party plugins.

If you're not interesting helping test Mixcraft 6, I understand. I'm just trying to understand the exact nature of the problem. That's the only way we could fix any possible issue.

In regard to the 64-bit question, I asked why you wanted it in order to find out what it was about a 64-bit version that made it compelling to you, aside from a desire to have "state of the art" software. The reason that we don't have a 64-bit version of Mixcraft is simply manpower. We've expended our resources cramming as many of the new features our customers have requested into Mixcraft 6. Creating a 64-bit version of Mixcraft will be a major undertaking and if we had devoted our time solely to that, the upgrade might not have seemed that attractive to most people. Our customers had been begging for things like "punch in / punch out," surface control support and multiple outs. Having access to more than 4 GB of RAM is not a key problem for most Mixcraft projects.

That being said, we likely will have a 64-bit version of Mixcraft at some point in the future.

In regard to Pianissimo, we didn't so much "drop the ball" as place the ball on the ground. You may be picturing Acoustica as a much larger company than it actually is, but we do have quite a small team and we need to focus our efforts where we get the most bang for the buck, and we feel that Mixcraft is highly important to the success of our company.

If you purchased Pianissimo within the last 30 days, you're welcome to submit an Acoustica Support Request and ask for a refund.

Greg

[Brother Charles]

Dear Mr. Greg:

Now you're talking straight and not treating me like a novice. I appreciate that.

Of course Acoustica is concerned about focusing its resources into enhancing and improving Mixcraft; Mixcraft is Acoustica's flagship product. As such, lowering CPU consumption and incorporating 64bit processing is important. I work for a company that develops software; it too is a smaller IT firm. I get where you're coming from. However, if my boss and the programmers didn't produce 64bit compliant apps, I wouldn't have a job, and neither would they.

When I said Mixcraft consumed more resources, I meant what I said. I understand that lots of folks aren't as technically savvy as I am, and I apologize for making the assumption that I articulated myself well enough to convey that.

The new features are certainly laudable. I'm very pleased with the additions. However, adding new features without improving performance is not good. A shiny car, with poor mileage and slow acceleration isn't viable. 64bit processing will keep Acoustica placed as a serious, yet affordable alternative to over-priced software.

As regards 3rd party plugins. We're talking ToonTrack and Native Instruments here; not some unheard of blips on the home recording radar. As far as that goes, my VSTs & VSTIs are working well.

I like the new version of Mixcraft. I like its new features and its pretty. Unfortunately, the performance has decreased enough to keep me away from whole-heartedly embracing it for a while. I do want to buy the $20 upgrade, in the hopes that the performance issues are fixed.

I can't help Acoustica out with these issues, other than intelligently bring them to your attention. I'm not picking on you folks - I'm a customer and have (for the most part) enjoyed using Mixcraft 5.x. I have a 6 month old, latest generation, Intel i3. While it's not as powerful as a shiny new i7, it certainly doesn't suck. For Mixcraft 6 to be a viable upgrade, especially considering that it's stuck in 32 bit mode, it shouldn't induce greater CPU load, sir.

And balls placed on the ground, are usually sold for less than they were when they were newly released, 4 years earlier. If people can't get much use out of Pianissimo because of incompatibilities with newer products, it shouldn't be sold as though there weren't any issues. We're comparing only 4 velocity layers and 4 year old technology with newer, better technology, for almost the same cost (if not more). I guess if a user only used Pianissimo with the instruments and plugins bundled with Mixcraft, it wouldn't be an issue. For those of us using other industry-standard products, it starts to become more of an issue. Again, I like Pianissimo, I just can't use it with my other plugins. That should be repaired, or at least add information plainly on the Acoustica website warning potential customers about the incompatibilities, straight up.

I wonder if there are more Native Instruments and EZ Drummer users than Mixcraft/Pianissimo users - for those who don't use the other 3rd party plugins, Pianissimo is a dandy Piano VSTi. For those of us who like Pianissimo, but can't use it much because it doesn't play nicely with others, it's kinda disappointing. Again, I like the instrument, I just can't use it. And no, I didn't buy it within the past 30 days; I bought the Mixcraft/Pianissimo bundle less than a year ago.

. . . .and Greg, thanks for taking the time and attention to dialogue with me about this. I sincerely appreciate it, sir.

God Bless the bunch of ya.

~Charles

Hello Charles,

While you may feel that I'm providing "level 1" support, I hope you can try to understand my perspective. You said that CPU usage was 10%-15% higher in Mixcraft 6. Our immediate reaction would be to try to determine whether this is the case for everybody and whether there is anything that we can do about it. As I said, we haven't seen an across the board increase in CPU usage in Mixcraft 6 during this beta testing period. If it's something that we can fix, we want to do that.

On the bottom of Mixcraft's screen, there are two CPU numbers, and I wanted to know which one you were quoting when you said Mixcraft 6 was hitting 57%. Was that the Mixcraft CPU number or the System CPU number? Did they both increase 10% to 15%?

I realize you might not care about the Mixcraft example projects, but in the interest of narrowing down the possible cause of the increased CPU usage, I was trying to determine whether this was related to third-party plugins.

If you're not interesting helping test Mixcraft 6, I understand. I'm just trying to understand the exact nature of the problem. That's the only way we could fix any possible issue.

In regard to the 64-bit question, I asked why you wanted it in order to find out what it was about a 64-bit version that made it compelling to you, aside from a desire to have "state of the art" software. The reason that we don't have a 64-bit version of Mixcraft is simply manpower. We've expended our resources cramming as many of the new features our customers have requested into Mixcraft 6. Creating a 64-bit version of Mixcraft will be a major undertaking and if we had devoted our time solely to that, the upgrade might not have seemed that attractive to most people. Our customers had been begging for things like "punch in / punch out," surface control support and multiple outs. Having access to more than 4 GB of RAM is not a key problem for most Mixcraft projects.

That being said, we likely will have a 64-bit version of Mixcraft at some point in the future.

In regard to Pianissimo, we didn't so much "drop the ball" as place the ball on the ground. You may be picturing Acoustica as a much larger company than it actually is, but we do have quite a small team and we need to focus our efforts where we get the most bang for the buck, and we feel that Mixcraft is highly important to the success of our company.

If you purchased Pianissimo within the last 30 days, you're welcome to submit an Acoustica Support Request and ask for a refund.

Greg

[Acoustica Greg]

Hello Brother Charles,

Here's the thing -- having a 64-bit version of Mixcraft wouldn't necessarily help with your CPU load. Your project is likely not requiring more than 4 GB of available RAM. The CPU performance meter is based on the workload of the CPU (or CPUs). Therefore you could have oodles of free RAM and still have the CPU performance meter hit 99%. Perhaps you've experienced something similar with a clunky anti-virus program. The program is hitting the CPU repeatedly, but not really using up all the RAM. Higher CPU usage might mean that an inefficient driver of some kind is requiring too many CPU cycles.

Mixcraft is capable of running threads on multiple processors, so having 4 or 8 CPUs in your computer can be a big help.

So, in your particular case, we have to ask why is the CPU load higher in Mixcraft 6? It's highly unlikely that your project is running out of RAM if you've got 4 GB or more installed in your computer.

Are you using multiple outs in this project? That would be one major difference between Mixcraft 5 and Mixcraft 6.

Greg

[Brother Charles]

Thanks for your reply, Greg. No, the difference between using EZ drummer in multi-out mode vs. keeping it in standard mode really made no difference. Besides, I'd already rendered the various drums channels as individual audio files anyway. On top of that, I'd rendered the drum tracks AFTER applying compression and ambiance as necessary. Including the effects processing during "mixdown to audio file" eliminates any CPU overhead.

No, sir. I simply can't use MC6. I really, really like the new features, but the CPU consumption is too strong. Like I've already mentioned, I'm a professional technician, and I've been involved with performance, recording and live audio engineering since 30+ years now. (LOL . . .Yes, I'm gettin' old . . .)

And just in case you don't use many Kontakt (or other) large sample libraries, each individual instrument, (Piano, Rhodes, Wurli, Scarbee Precision bass, etc. .) can easily gobble up 300 MB of ram apiece. 32 bit memory constraints are a very valid, and REAL concern for those of us using Mixcraft in a more pro, or semi-pro scenario. For anyone who enjoys using Mixcraft in a less-demanding, amateur, or hobbyist capacity, these concerns are very likely never realized.

And yes, my system is definitely optimized for audio production. Not only do I cover all the simple bases covered, such as unloading TSRs (such as virus scanners, etc.) but I have manually edited the windows 7 registry to disallow CPU power-save parking, etc..

Mixcraft 5.x works quite well on my system. Mixcraft 6 taxes it way toooo much. I really like the features; I really dislike the performance hit. I've even lessened the FPS that the GUI uses. I've edited the shortcut link so that the application starts up without Win7 desktop composition enabled.

BTW, are the Acoustica programmers utilizing code that uses modern GPUs to offset CPU load? nVidia, ATI and now Intel all manufacture GPUs that can really aid in audio/multi-media performance. The new GUI is super sexy, but it has a lot going on - perhaps that contributes to performance drain?

No matter, I know that it will be improved over time, and that I will someday buy a new, higher-powered laptop. I was glad to bless Acoustica with another little bit of a purchase. I'm rootin' for you bunch and I will continue to stay in your corner. That's not too say that I won't take another product out for a good test run (64 bit product, that is), but for only $21 CAD, I'm really glad to still be an Acoustica customer.

Thanks & God Bless,
~Charles

[Acoustica Greg]

Hello Brother Charles,

Well, as I said before, we don't have anything against creating a 64-bit version of Mixcraft, it's just not the feature that we felt would give our customers the most bang for the buck this time around. It's no simple task to create a 64-bit version and rather than spend the development time on that one effort, our priority was to add the long list of customer-requested features that we've put into Mixcraft 6.

Is the 57% CPU usage causing any playback problems? Why would that prevent you from using Mixcraft 6?

At any rate, if there is some extra CPU overhead in Mixcraft 6 that we can fix, we'd like to do that. I just tried loading a Mixcraft 5 example project and I'm not seeing a 10% - 15% increase in CPU usage in Mixcraft 6. Without more information, it's hard to say why you're experiencing this.

Greg

[Brother Charles]

Dear Greg:

Yessir, it sure does affect playback. Unfortunately, it seriously (obviously) negatively impacts recording performance as well. I've gotten so used to having to export each of EZ Drummer's or Studio Drummer's individual drums to separate tracks that I won't miss what I didn't have. *grin*.

Great new features in MC6. I'm looking forward to getting to use them someday.

As regards CPU increase - how much testing do you folks @ Acoustica undertake using items such as Scarbee Clavinet, Scarbee Mark I, and other Native Instruemtns Kontakt 4.x or 5.x sample libraries? Shred is a decent little amp sim suite; Ken Mc and the boys over at Acme did a great job on their freeware.

However, have the Acoustica folks tested MC6 with Guitar Rig 4.x, 5.x, or IK Multimedia components? Mixcraft is a decent DAW (especially considering the affordable purchase cost), but let me remind you that Rea****, one of Acoustica's main competitors, offer 64 bit, arguably better built-in effects, and very, very low CPU consumption. REA*** also works very cooperatively with the aforementioned 3rd party plugins/instruments/samplers. BTW, REA*** still includes Elastique pitch corrector, and it is better than the one you folks started using in ver. 5.x

Now that being said, I really liked the Mixcraft ease-of-use and interface design, so I didn't fork over the $60 for REA***, non-commercial license.

Again, I'll be bench-testing any new iterations of MC6, because I am eager to engage the really cool new features. The features totally impress me! I think the propeller heads did a FANTASTIC job incorporating them. (Psst, I'm a propeller head myself . . .lol)

Thanks & God Bless,
Bro. Charles

[Acoustica Greg]

Hi,

I did some more testing on this CPU issue using an older Windows XP laptop so that any CPU load problem would be more obvious. I loaded a project in Mixcraft 5 and played it, then loaded the same project in Mixcraft 6 and played it again, noting the CPU reading on task manager's performance screen. At first, I thought I had duplicated your results, but then I realized that Mixcraft 6 was set to use ASIO4All. Switching the sound device setting to match Mixcraft 5 caused the CPU reading to be the same or even lower than in Mixcraft 5.

As an IT professional, you know that it's impossible for a software developer to test his software with every combination of hardware and software. Plugins are a particular problem. Even if we had every plugin on the market, we might not have the same version that you have. This, of course, is why software companies look for the assistance of beta testers.

Once again, the question is -- why are you seeing higher CPU usage in Mixcraft 6? There's something going on with your hardware / software configuration that is not happening in our baseline tests. We're also not hearing that there is a problem from other users.

Having access to more than 4 GB would definitely not help in this case, because the identical project doesn't have the higher CPU usage in Mixcraft 5. Our tests show that Mixcraft 6 does not add CPU overhead to every project. Therefore, even if this were a 64-bit version of Mixcraft, you'd still be seeing the CPU load increase.

Of course, if something is different in the project, that could be it. As I mentioned before, if you were using multiple outs, that would increase the CPU load. But you ruled that out.

Another possibility is that one of your third-party plugins is interacting in a different way with Mixcraft 6. It would be helpful if you could isolate which plugin it was.

Greg

[Brother Charles]

Howdy Greg:

I will try to wrangle up some time over the weekend to isolate the problem. If MC 6 honestly doesn't consume more CPU than ver. 5.x, then we have to assume that it doesn't play nicely, in it's current beta condition, with Guitar Rig 5 Pro, or Kontakt 5. Those are the only (2) "big gun" plugins that I'm using that could be causing this issue. If that's the case, then I won't be using Mixcraft 6. Think about it . . .lol Trade in my $400 sampler (with extensive instrument library of both factory & high end instruments) and my amp sim/effects/convolution verb package because a lesser-known, less expensive DAW doesn't cooperate well with them? NO . . . . that's not gonna happen.

Native Instrument's industry-leading common plugins, are not exactly obscure plugins that could be easily overlooked on Acoustica's end. This is not my issue, nor Native Instrument's issue - it's Acoustica's issue. I won't be trading in my high quality plugins for an incompatible, entry/mid grade DAW. If I must, I'll save up and go with something (more expensive) that is much more compatible with my sample libraries, plugins, etc..

Besides, I'm getting along OK with MC5. It hasn't the really cool features of ver. 6, but it's a dandy DAW, nevertheless. It's served me faithfully, and I've gotten very adept at recording with it.

Thanks & God Bless,
Bro. Charles

[Brother Charles]

DOH! Oh well . . .

I'm tired of fighting with MC6. Lots of cool features, lots of pretty bling. However, it uses upwards of DOUBLE CPU consumption, compared to ver. 5.2., on my system. I've opened 4 different mx5 projects and EVERY ONE of them loaded into MC6 results in my system exhibiting high CPU usage, audio dropouts, severe crackling & glitches. Sure, I've narrowed down the problems. VST plugins such as Kontakt 5, Guitar Rig Pro 5, Amplitude 3.7, Sampletank 2.5, and just about any plug in that I can can think of.

I'm uninstalling it. The old version (5.2) works quite well for me. I have a new i3 2330 (2nd gen). My PC is seriously tweaked for optimum audio performance. Its benchmarks blow my old Intel Q6600 out of the water so I know it's not my system. I guess if I had a shiny new i7 it would be better. Nevertheless, for Acoustica's rep to make like it's just my system, or my plugins is not acceptable. My system is quite new, and reasonably powerful. 1333 FSB with 6GB of installed RAM.

To put the blame off on Industry-leading, defacto standard plugins/instruments such as Kontakt 5 or Guitar Rig 5 is silly.

I've purchased the upgrade license, and I'll give the program a try again some time in the future, when the product matures, and when I have a newer, even more powerful system. In the meantime, I'll stick with 5.2 and make do with its limitations. The wonderful new features are very welcome, but the program is all but unusable for me.

Oh well . . . no matter. It'll all work out in time.

I continue to pray God's blessings upon Acoustica, and Acoustica staff. Keep up the good work y'all. I'll check in with you at a later date.

Sincerely,
Bro. Charles